Martin Sebor - Re: user-defined types and basic_string (original) (raw)

This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.orgmailing list for the libstdc++ project.

• From: Martin Sebor
• To: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
• Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:07:55 -0600
• Subject: Re: user-defined types and basic_string
• References: <89BE9430-B6C7-11D6-94D6-00039390D9E0@apple.com>
• Reply-to: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org

Matte Austere wrote:

...

But the biggest problem, I think, is that specializing char_traits is just a
tiny piece of the work that users need to do to write a new character
type. Seems to me that anyone who's capable of writing a specialization
std::ctype<my_char> is more than capable of writing std::char_traits<my_char>,
and it'll be a specialization that's right, not just a generic version that's almost right.

I vote for leaving the generic std::char_traits undefined.

You're probably right if one needs the character type to work with iostreams. But if all one wants is a basic_string or any other specialization on a native type besides char and wchar_t, I'd say the almost right primary template is perfectly adequate.

Martin

• References:
  • Re: user-defined types and basic_string
    * From: Matt Austern